Peps said:
You're not a liar. I just don't think anything will convince you. I've debated against people such as yourself before, and nothing convinces them. Heck, I used to be the same. I used to always press people for absolute concrete evidence to "prove my point", even though their logic was very sound. Really though, it was just me not able to come up with a good argument to counter their point, and I hated being wrong. I've learned to be more open-minded when it comes to discussing different topics, and learned to enjoy discussing and trying to understand different views, rather than being aggressive and going "PROVE IT!". If you can't trust people who work in the industry, actually know their stuff, have zero reason to lie, and provide a solid thread of logic, well, you have issues. No offense.
I honestly can't see why you can't provide a solid thread of logic that shows some validity in your argument. You should learn to be more open-minded.
( I know I said i wasn't going to respond, but I'm sorry, I just can't let that by without a response)
No, you're calling me a liar. See several posts ago, I clearly said if you can provide me with evidence that the used market is killing the industry, I'll change my opinion on the whole matter and even join in with the fight against it. Now you're saying that's not the case and I'd just argue against the evidence. hence, you're calling me a liar. That's not enough for you though, you also have to be condescending over the whole matter.
Oh and BTW, I'm not asking for absolute concrete evidence, I'm asking for
any evidence. That's it, just anything that will actually go some way to prove the used market is killing the used industry and yet you haven't been able to do that, none of the indie devs in the links you have provided have done that, all I'm seeing to support you claim is a small handful of developers who are saying the used market is killing the industry and offering absolutely nothing to show how they know this. When developers or publishers speak out against piracy they can normally provide figures showing how many people are playing the game and how many people have actually bought it. That's the kind of evidence I'm looking for you to provide. If they can provide it for piracy, why can't it be provided for used games and why do you insist of thinking it's so wrong for me to expect at least some evidence, no matter how small, to back up an extremely severe claim?
I can't provide a solid thread of logic for what argument? That you should be expected to provide some evidence when making a serious claim? That's then only real argument I've been trying to make here and I'm pretty sure I've already provided an extremely logical argument in support of that. In case you missed it the several other times I posted it, here it is again...developers must have evidence to know that used games are killing the industry, otherwise they have just randomly chosen to blame used games for no reason at all. So if the evidence exists, why aren't they willing to provide that evidence? Why do they simply expect us to take their word for it? When a developer tries to claim piracy is an issue, they provide some figures to back up their claim. Why can't the developers saying used games are an issue do the same? Why are we expected to just take their word for it? Should I just be expected to take people's word on other things too? A lot of people claim ghosts exist. They can provide no evidence for this, but would you expect me to just take their word for it? Most of them have no reason to lie (BTW, I'm not talking about Psychics or others who make money through it, I'm talking about the many regular people who believe in ghosts), so by your logic, I should just be expected to take their word for it. After all, most of them probably know more about ghosts than I do. What about religion? No real proof, but people who know more about religion than I do claim their god or gods exist, so I guess I should just take their word for it. But, wait, they don't all believe the same thing, so logically at least some of them have to be wrong. But, how can that be? I mean, they're clearly right, they said they are and they know more about it than I do
Tell me, if it was such a big issue (and it has to be if your claim is to be believed), why haven't more developers spoken out about used games? Why have only a very small proportion of indie developers come out to attack the industry? If it's an indisputable fact that it's killing the industry, shouldn't we expect there to be a massive movement from the indie scene trying to convince us of this fact?
Or are you suggesting I should provide a solid thread of logic for the argument that used games aren't killing the industry? If so, I haven't done that because it's not an argument that I've tried to make. I asked you to provide evidence that used was killing the industry, that's not the same thing as saying it's not true. That said, you want me to provide some arguments to back up the idea that used isn't killing the industry? Ok, I will.
- The knowledge that games can be returned means that people are more likely to take a risk when buying a game. If we are forced to keep every game we buy, purchasing a new game at full price becomes a very significant investment, with a used market, it is less of an issue because we know we will be able to get some money back on bad purchases.
- Trade-in credit allows people to buy more games. When I was young, I often relied on trade-in credit to get my new games. I didn't have enough money to just buy new games when they came out, however if I traded in a game or two, I did. That is still a sale of a new game, where the money comes from doesn't matter. Used games allowed me to buy new games I couldn't have otherwise bought
- Being able to buy older games used can lead to people wanting to buy newer games in the same franchise or from the same developer. Long after it came out and was no longer possible to buy new, I picked up a used copy of Psychonauts. That game made me a massive fan of Schafer and Double Fine, so much so that every single game they have released since, I have bought on the day of release and I've donated a fairly decent amount to their Kickstarter campaigns. If it had not been for that used copy of Psychonauts, I almost certainly wouldn't have done that.
- Increased sales of DLC. Used games mean more people end up playing said game. While the creator will not see a return from that second sale, they will see a return from any DLC the used owner decides to buy and the following used owner and the following used owner, etc.
Now before you start arguing against a point I haven't made...again, I'm not saying the above reasons are arguments that the used market is a good thing. I'm saying they are arguments against the idea that the used market is killing the industry. Allow me to pre-emptively explain the logic behind that, just in case you were thinking of asking. For the used market to be killing the industry, it has to be taking a very significant amount of money away from the industry. It's not just a simple case of 'it's taking some money away therefore it's killing the industry', hurting maybe, but not killing. That's the key point here. In fact, it has to be taking away (or at least coming very close to) enough money so that games actually can't make a profit. Would you agree that's fair? If games are still making a profit (I'm speaking generally here, even without a used market, not every game would sell enough to make a profit), then by definition, the industry can't be dying and therefore used games can't be killing it. Now, the above arguments in favour of the used market show that money is being put back into the industry as a direct result of the used market. I'm not suggesting it's as much as is being taken out (I doubt it's even particularly close), but it is something that's being put back in.
THAT's the point of asking for evidence. We
NEED to know how much used games are costing the industry (or at least just a single developer) and how much they are putting back in. Then we can see how much of an actual impact it's having and work out if it's actually killing the industry or not. Simply having a handful of developers say that it is isn't enough, not even slightly. We should not be willing to give up something that has, for almost as long as gaming has existed, been one of the fundamentals of console gaming, the right to sell a game you no longer want, something that many people rely on in order to get their games, for a claim that is just based on the word of a relatively small group of developers who are not willing to offer any proof.
